Dcflyer

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Dcflyer!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open!

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Dcflyer,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.

In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 20 April 2017, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
--Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 08:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Catégorisation

Salut, en passant les images qui sont dans la catégorie Category:Église Saint-Michel de Sillery‎ sont déjà dans Category:Sillery (Quebec), les deux catégorie sont inutiles. Aussi ajouter Category:Quebec City boroughs, ça veut dire que l'images est un arrondissement de Québec!. Bonne continuation. --Fralambert (talk) 13:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Je suis désolé. Merci pour votre aide. Dcflyer (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Montgomery County Public Schools logo.jpg

File:Montgomery County Public Schools logo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Government of Canada (Gouvernement du Canada) cannabis sign at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (YTZ) gate on 19 October 2018.jpg

File:Government of Canada (Gouvernement du Canada) cannabis sign at Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport (YTZ) gate on 19 October 2018.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

File source is not properly indicated: File:Kensington md plat 1890.jpg

This media was probably deleted.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Kensington md plat 1890.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Kensington md plat 1890.jpg]]). If you created the content yourself, enter {{Own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work. If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so. Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

Castillo blanco (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You do it

You're the one with the hangup about it being named after Georgia, even though most isn't, so why don't YOU do it.  I'm not wasting my time on it, except to continue reverting your categorization mistakes. Famartin (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. jdx ^Re: 08:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@jdx, Thank you for kindly granting me autopatrol rights, and for providing a detailed description of them. I am much appreciative, as I'm glad that it's of benefit to monitors of recent changes and uploads, as well as being positive feedback and confidence received from you. My sincere apologies for this delayed reply. Thank you very much. Best,

Dcflyer (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Hm?

What was your rationale for this ? There's certainly a caricature of Parker in that image... DS (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@DS

My rationale was following what is considered an official policy on Wikimedia Commons: Not over-categorizing, i.e., the "general rule is always place an image in the most specific categories, and not in the levels above those" and "Don't place an item into a category and its parent." The file, along with others, were placed in both Category:Alton B. Parker and Category:Alton B. Parker presidential campaign, 1904, the latter which has the parent Category:Alton B. Parker — including a few files by me. In regard to a caricature, there are four caricature specific categories for the file, e.g., Category:Caricatures of Grover Cleveland, but such one does not exist for Alton B. Parker.

However, I do realize that on "lower levels, the problem becomes less acute, since the number of images will be smaller..." If in your judgment, the inclusion of Category:Alton B. Parker is of benefit, as Parker's category is far from requiring diffusion, I'd be more than happy to revert my edit or otherwise restore the aforementioned category. — Dcflyer (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Potomac River bridges (Point of Rocks, etc)

I put this in the revert comment, but I'll place it here, too, since you seem to have missed or ignored it: The portion of bridge over shoreline on VA side is in VA since shoreline is the state line, not the bridge abutment. So they need to be in the appropriate VA cats. Famartin (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Also will add that just because MDOT maintains the entire structure does not mean the entire structure is in Maryland. That's obviously a bi-state agreement of some sort. But law clearly defines that the shore, not the abutments, are the state line, and since parts of the bridge structure are above the land in VA, that part of the bridge is in VA. Famartin (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This bridge is entirely located in the state of Maryland and owned by the Maryland State Highway Administration. Sources: https://mht.maryland.gov/secure/Medusa/PDF/Frederick/F-2-34.pdf http://www.bridgehunter.com/19680 http://bridgereports.com/1240616 https://www.loudoun.gov/3997/Route-15-North-of-Leesburg https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/byways/2343/directions https://infobridge.fhwa.dot.gov/Data/BridgeDetail/21841794 https://mht.maryland.gov/secure/medusa/mapintermediate.aspx?ID=10382&ID1=10382&ID2=undefined&Section=archInv&PropertyID=10382&selRec=archInv https://maps.google.com/?cid=3662983405730564995 Dcflyer (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Your sources?

Dcflyer (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Look at Google satellite: The bridge structure clearly crosses the state line. https://www.google.com/maps/place/39%C2%B016'19.9%22N+77%C2%B032'47.7%22W/@39.272207,-77.5471402,219m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m13!1m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x32d588000cb88b83!2sPoint+of+Rocks+Bridge!8m2!3d39.2729649!4d-77.5449963!3m5!1s0x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d39.2722056!4d-77.5465934 Famartin (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Original research; not a legitimate source which can be cited. Dcflyer (talk) 21:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Seriously? You just used google in an attempt to support your argument, and now you are saying it’s invslid? No one is disputing that’s its MDOT property, but it’s certainly not the only case of a highway in one state that is maintained by another. I mean, for example, MD and VA maintain the short DC portion of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, but I’ve never heard of anyone disputing that it’s partly in DC. But all actual maps clearly show part of the Point of Rocks Bridge structure over land in VA. Now, if you find a legal decision that says that all Potomac Ricer Bridges are considered to be entirely in MD, I’ll go along with you. However, right now I think the only reason MD is the location cited is because the entire river is in MD and it’s owned by MDOT. Neither point of which is actually relevant here. Famartin (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

NRHP template

Re here: I was under the impression that {{NRHP}} was acceptable for use on contributing properties like Category:Union Station (Petersburg, Virginia). However, contributing properties cannot have NRHP number on Wikidata (because that property is constrained so that each NRHP ID can only be used once). Would it be possible for {{NRHP}} to support contributing properties (such as not throwing an error if Property:P1435 indicates a contributing property)? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 — Hi, that is a very good question. There is a limitation in the public dissemination of what property or resource may or may not be a contributing property to a given historic district (HD). Only the name of the HD is listed (published) on the official Register, and is retrievable from search options (see https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/database-research.htm ). The dissemination of an HD's contributing and/or non-contributing properties occurs with the submittal of a National Register of Historic Places nomination form to the particular State Historic Preservation Office, and with possible subsequent status updates. There is extreme variation in the level of detail provided regarding the contributing properties across HD form submittal, e.g., some list only the number of structures in total (unnamed). Additionally, not all of the forms have been scanned into PDFs. Because of the aforementioned, I surmise that is why NRHP templates across projects appear to focus exclusively on the listed named HD.

I will inquire with the en wiki project WP:NRHP and with two Wikidata editors who have contributed to NRHP items for several years, for any other options and feedback. I will let you know what I find out. — Dcflyer (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

16th Street Historic District

If a highway runs through Maryland, D.C., and Virginia, we would include the highway category under those state categories, not the entire country. The same thing applies to a historic district. By putting the historic district category in the entire northwest quadrant instead of neighborhood categories, users looking for the 16th Street HD would not find it as easily since they'll be looking at neighborhood categories. Anyone who's ever lived in the area would know 16th Street is a part of those three neighborhoods. If you were to ask people that live at 16th and L, 16th and P, or 16th and V what neighborhood they're in, no one would say "16th Street" since that neighborhood doesn't exist. So please explain why 16th Street Historic District doesn't belong under the neighborhood categories. You mentioned it would place the 16th Street HD inside the Dupont HD. That's not the case. There's a category for the Dupont Circle neighborhood, not the Dupont Circle Historic District (which is basically the same, but still separate), and there's also not a category for the Downtown HD. When someone goes to Category:Downtown Washington, D.C. I seriously doubt they're going there for the Downtown HD, especially since the HD boundary isn't even the same. I see you added the category today, but adding that just makes it more confusing. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Using the same brochure you mentioned in an edit summary..."Upon the extension of Sixteenth Street beyond Florida Avenue in 1893, the street emerged as a direct route into downtown from the growing suburbs to the north." and "Several community groups contribute to the on-going preservation and revitalization of Sixteenth Street. The Dupont Circle Citizens Association, founded in 1922, is the neighborhood's largest membership organization. Through its committees and monthly meetings, the association is involved in zoning, environment, education, safety, historic preservation, and related issues which affect the quality of life in the Dupont Circle area. The Dupont Circle Conservancy, a preservation advocacy organization founded in 1978, regularly monitors proposed alterations to historic buildings in the Dupont Circle neighborhood and provides community comments to the Historic Preservation Review Board." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@User:AgnosticPreachersKid — Dupont and Downtown are NRHP districts themselves. The NRHP district of Sixteenth Street Historic District is neither part of, nor located in those HDs. By making the NRHP district of Sixteenth Street Historic District subcategories of the other two associates Sixteenth Street Historic District's category and its contents with Dupont Circle Historic District and Downtown Historic District's NRHP reference numbers — {{NRHP}} : "Automated tools (bots and scripts) use the presence of this template to create and manage associations between categories, media files, and articles on the subjects depicted." "Only apply the template to a category if the ID applies to all of the contained files and subcategories." The street analogy is comparing apples to oranges. Plus, is a street categorized with every single neighborhood that it may traverse? No. And it is not a given that a street does not have subdivided categories, e.g. : Maryland Route 355 in Frederick County & Maryland Route 355 in Montgomery County, plus U.S. Route 1 in the District of Columbia, U.S. Route 1 in Virginia, etc.

Historic district boundaries:

• https://matthewbgilmore.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dupont-2.pdf
• https://matthewbgilmore.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/16th-2.pdf
• https://matthewbgilmore.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/dtn-2.pdf

• https://planning.dc.gov/node/593232
• https://planning.dc.gov/node/593092
• https://planning.dc.gov/node/593352

"Anyone who's ever lived in the area would know 16th Street is a part of those three neighborhoods." Does that constitute a verifiable source? And does one have to live in the area of an item to make an edit to it? — Dcflyer (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I've provided a source, the same one you used in the edit summary. So you're telling me 16th Street is NOT a part of those neighborhoods? What neighborhoods are they a part of? I'm genuinely curious. I guess common sense would apply here the same way we know the White House is downtown, but here's one example: "The National Register of Historic Places and the District government list four historic districts in the neighborhood: the Dupont Circle Historic District, the Massachusetts Avenue Historic District, the Sixteenth Street Historic District and the Strivers’ Section Historic District." And as I mentioned above, you added the HD category today to the Downtown category (which is wrong based on the HD boundary - it doesn't include the entire downtown area) so by citing that as an example, it doesn't make any difference. That's just showing it was improperly categorized. If you want to create separate categories for the Downtown and Dupont HDs (like Category:Greater U Street Historic District), then those obviously wouldn't include the 16th Street HD category so not to interfere with the automated tools you mentioned and it would solve this entire problem. But the neighborhood categories are not the same. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

This is only furthering the problem. Also, if there's already a HD category for U Street, then why is there an issue to include Category:U Street Corridor, Washington, D.C.? It doesn't interfere with {{NRHP}} since it's only on Category:Greater U Street Historic District, which is your main argument. I think if we create separate HD categories for Dupont Circle and Downtown, this entire thing will be solved. What are your thoughts? AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I added the category Historic districts on the National Register of Historic Places in Washington, D.C. to Downtown, because Downtown Washington's Wikidata item contained a statement for NRHP reference number and its category Downtown Washington, D.C. contained the NRHP template. You are correct that Downtown (and Dupont) are problematic because of their multiple roles.

FYI: "The District of Columbia does not have official neighborhood boundaries. The Office of Planning provides a separate data layer containing Neighborhood Labels that it uses to place neighborhood names on its maps. No formal set of standards describes which neighborhoods are included in that dataset." : https://opendata.dc.gov/datasets/neighborhood-clusters . Only neighbored clusters; however, the boundaries of the NRHP districts are official. — Dcflyer (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

So if we create separate categories for the Dupont Circle Historic District and Downtown Historic District, do you agree that re-adding the neighborhood categories to the 16th Street HD category is fine? And your thoughts on re-adding the U Street Corridor category since it doesn't interfere with the Greater U Street HD category? Here's what the nomination form for the Congressional Club, which is a contributing property to the 16th Street HD, mentions: "The elegant yet unassuming blond brick building is considered an 'important landmark' that fits harmoniously within the varied urban fabric of the 16th and U Street corridors and serves as an important contribution to the City Beautiful Movement and Mary Foote Henderson’s vision for the development of Meridian Hill and 16th Street." AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

U Street Corridor, Washington, D.C. and Greater U Street Historic District were/are problematic for different reasons.

• U Street Corridor, Washington, D.C. was a Wikimedia category without a main topic and erroneously had the Commons site link for Greater U Street Historic District. I created a new Wikidata item for Greater U Street Historic District, swapped Commons site links, and added the main topic Wikidata item for category U Street Corridor.
• Based on the wording of the National Park Service profile (https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc63.htm ) and the NRHP nomination form (https://npgallery.nps.gov/GetAsset/1632bbda-dd42-4e11-b8ec-a231cfb56631 ), it appears that the boundaries are one and the same, despite enwiki stating otherwise w/out citation.

— Dcflyer (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Wikidata items may require merging, with a redirect for one of the two Commons categories. — Dcflyer (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It does include most of the U Street Corridor, but not all of it, according to the boundary map. But would you mind answering my question above, please? Thank you. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 21:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"So if we create separate categories for the Dupont Circle Historic District and Downtown Historic District, do you agree that re-adding the neighborhood categories to the 16th Street HD category is fine?"

Yes. Most definitely. I'm sorry, I should have made that clear from the start. — Dcflyer (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I'll start with Dupont HD now. — Dcflyer (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll work on Downtown. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I added what I could think of (and what fits in the boundary) to Category:Downtown Historic District (Washington, D.C.) and working on the Dupont HD category now. Just so we're on the same page, are you removing the Category:Dupont Circle parent category when adding Category:Dupont Circle Historic District as well? I'm working on sub-categories now but when it comes to individual images, I'll swap the categories if architecture is the feature of the article, not just random street scenes. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for creating Downtown HD and for your work both on it and Dupont HD. The only category for which I did not remove the parent category of Dupont Circle was for the fountain. With it being the iconic image and feature of the neighborhood, traffic circle's park, and the HD, it is likely the most viewed subcategory and this would keep it more quickly accessible. Please let me know if disagree with my judgment call, and I'll remove the overcategorization (COM:OVERCAT) in this case. Thanks for all your help.

— Dcflyer (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I'll be working on the Dupont category off and on tonight. I'm realizing how many hundreds if not a thousand photos of Dupont I've uploaded, so this might take a while. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I saw your edit to Category:Phillips Collection but Category:Duncan Phillips House already has those categories. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll correct my edits to the Wikidata items and purge the Commons cache. Thanks again, as well as for your very significant photographic + informational contribution to D.C. on Commons.

— Dcflyer (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how to edit Wikidata besides replacing images. If you get a chance, can you add the HD 2007 expansion here? The ref number is 07000671 and the date is July 11, 2007. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 19:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

University and college yearbooks

University and college yearbooks has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

–IagoQnsi (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Contributing properties of Union Depot-Warehouse Historic District

Even with your summary, I don't understand this edit. Why exactly did you remove the {{NRHP}} tag? - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Contributing properties of Union Depot-Warehouse Historic District (or of any other NRHP district) are not listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Only Union Depot-Warehouse Historic District itself (https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/80004009). Utilizing the NRHP template, with the NRHP number, on any Commons category other than the NRHP district's category that is linked to a Wikidata item containing a statement for the particular NRHP number categorizes a Commons category with the hidden category of Category:National Register of Historic Places Wikidata missing ID for resolution. Although, that issue would not likely be resolved anytime soon, as there are currently 5,852 subcategories. Dcflyer (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Automatically adding a category like that looks to me like a bug. We routinely put the NRHP template on individual photos of a Registered Historic Place that also has a category; why on earth would we not want to be able to do the same for subcats? This template was never intended to have that "magic" side effect. - Jmabel ! talk 22:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  It does not appear to be a bug. It's a Wikidata related maintenance category. It appears that the rationale, along with resolving issues of Wikidata items with missing NRHP #s, is based on being both factual and verifiable: Placing a NRHP template with a NRHP # on an entity that is not listed on the NRHP can be misleading and of a disservice, as National Register of Historic Places (Q3719) listings at both the National Park Service (Q308439) and National Archives and Records Administration (Q518155) do not specify what may or may not be contributing or non-contributing properties to a listed entity. Those properties may or may not have been included in the listed entity's National Register of Historic Places nomination form (Q47123453). However, it does appear that the automated maintenance categorization of template-containing media files directly pertaining to their NRHP listed entities is an unintended and undesirable consequence/effect. Dcflyer (talk) 12:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Restoring "publishing companies" redirect

Hi. Do you mind if I ask how the redirection of "publishing companies" is sensible when there is no "house" parent category, every kind of company is in a "company" category including "publishing houses", and most of the subcategories in "publishing houses" have "company" in their name? As a side to that, as far as I'm aware "publishing house" is a term only used by the book publishing industry. The reason I changed things to "publishing companies" in the first place is so other publishing companies besides book publishers would make sense if they were put in the category, because a category like "video game publishing houses" just sounds stupid and nonsensical. If the only category that can have the word "house" in it is the parent, then I see no reason why it shouldn't be changed to "company." Otherwise, I wonder what your alternative would be. I'm going to restore the "publishing companies" if you can't come up with one that makes sense, because the current way of doing it clearly doesn't. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Adamant1, thank you for bringing this to my attention. After examining my previous edits, it appears that I made those particular changes to the Commons categories of Category:Publishing houses and Category:Publishing companies based upon the fact that the Wikimedia/Wikidata category Category:Publishing companies (Q6149740) contained/contains both the Commons site link and the Commons category (P373) for Category:Publishing houses. They were added to the Wikidata item on 21 October 2013 and 4 May 2013, respectively; however the item had the English language label of Category:Book publishing companies when those edits were made. My apologies for undoing the changes which you had made to the two Commons categories, without fully examining the logic involved, and please restore your edits. After the restoration, I will resolve the issue(s) on the Wikidata end (especially given that the interwiki conflicts have existed since at least 23 October 2015), by possibly renaming, merging, and/or creating new Wikidata item(s) for Wikimedia categories for the multiple publishing entities. Thanks, Dcflyer (talk) 04:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)